The Overall Disney Thread

yeah, i never got the "possible" racist connection with the crows, either--it had to be pointed out to me, presumably (i can't remember who) by someone who already had an agenda against Disney to begin with. what really pisses me off about it is people pointing to Dumbo like it's indicative of the entire history of Disney. yes, they've had their fair share of controversial moments, including through to our lifetimes (one word: Frollo) but it's not their modus operandi and to say that something from fuckin' 1941 is indicative of Disney as a whole today--or even at any other time in its history, for that matter--is just being a dick for the sake of being a dick

and Rhedo, you should definitely give the original Dinosaurs a chance if you get the opportunity to do so--it's really quite good, and alot of the topical humor and messages in it still hold up today

_______________Requiescas in pace, Jurassic Park Legacy. We will never forget you.

Rplegacy: Pursue all ambition, ye who enter here!Join the Brethren!

GuestGuest

Subject: Re: The Overall Disney Thread Fri Jan 13, 2017 9:06 pm

I've never even heard of that Dinosaurs TV show. But then again the chances of catching it on TV in 90's here was pretty non existent, and afterwards I haven't been particularly interested.

Even Dino Riders I only saw by miracle when someone had rare dubbed VHS of it. That series had amazing pilot and all the other episodes were crap. But it was all just to try to sell you toys so whatever.

like i said, you should check it out if you get the chance. it was made by Jim Henson's team, the same people who made the Muppets (Henson himself was working on it, but he passed away just before it aired and the first episode is dedicated to him)

_______________Requiescas in pace, Jurassic Park Legacy. We will never forget you.

I'm open to the idea of a Zootopia sequel, but I have to wonder what direction they will take (if indeed it can get much darker) and whether we will see other groups of animals like birds and reptiles, maybe even apes and monkeys, since they were intentionally omitted from the film.

Zootopia 2 being confirmed (along with rumors of sequels for Frozen and Wreck-It Ralph that i've heard) also has interesting implications depending on how they handle it. after Rescuers Down Under, their first sequel movie, bombed at the box office there was basically an executive decision to not spend more money than needed on sequels in order to turn a profit even if it did poorly, which is where all those cut-rate direct-to-video sequels which look more like TV cartoons came from, and then they stopped making them entirely iirc. this could very well be a sign of Disney trying out theatrical sequels again.

_______________Requiescas in pace, Jurassic Park Legacy. We will never forget you.

finally saw Finding Dory just the other day. it was on Netflix. i've also noticed that Zootopia, the Jungle Book remake, and Captain America: Civil War were added relatively recently with a pretty quick turnaround to when they were released theatrically, so i wonder if this is a sign of a new pattern for Disney (and Disney-affiliated) movies being put on Netflix?

_______________Requiescas in pace, Jurassic Park Legacy. We will never forget you.

At this point it's hard to tell if he's dodged a bullet or missed a hit, but personally I don't think Will would have translated well to a 1940s period setting, never mind tone back his attitude to that of a black American person living during the height of American race segregation. If there is an important black father character in the film that needs a recognizable name, I would probably nominate Denzel Washington for a part like that, as he is of the right age and has the acting chops to blend into that setting.

At this point it's hard to tell if he's dodged a bullet or missed a hit, but personally I don't think Will would have translated well to a 1940s period setting, never mind tone back his attitude to that of a black American person living during the height of American race segregation. If there is an important black father character in the film that needs a recognizable name, I would probably nominate Denzel Washington for a part like that, as he is of the right age and has the acting chops to blend into that setting.

I agree. Denzel Washington is a better part for that. That or Dwayne Johnson, aka The Rock.

As for the Mary Poppins Returns casting, I am still really anxious for this thing eventually coming; most people would not be in favour of a sequel to a nigh perfect family classic... at least before the trailer comes out. If given the choice, I'd rather there was no Mary Poppins sequel being made, and so long after the original as well.

However, there have been three noteworthy films set in the Wizard of Oz universe; Return to Oz plays out as a sequel to the original L. Frank Baum book from Disney but is pretty damn dark, Oz: The Great and Powerful which is probably more of a prequel to the Victor Fleming classic and a set-up to the events in that film, and finally Wicked another Wizard of Oz prequel that is probably the best received of the bunch, certainly the one with the largest pop culture impact. What's my point to all this? There have been many new Oz related properties, and one belated sequel to Mary Poppins won't take anything away from the original if it's bad.

Well, they weren't going to top the original animated Mufasa under any circumstances, so it's nice to see them own up to this ahead of time. And kudos to Jones for being able to reprise both of his iconic roles well into his 80s. Sadly, with his age being what it is, I do wonder how strong his voice will be for when Mufasa has to be threatening, angry or shouting. Donald Glover as Simba I have no problems with. Now they just need to cast Scar, and I really, really hope that Charles Dance gets the part; after playing Tywin Lannister with great panache, a role like Scar would fit him like a glove!

Well, they weren't going to top the original animated Mufasa under any circumstances, so it's nice to see them own up to this ahead of time. And kudos to Jones for being able to reprise both of his iconic roles well into his 80s. Sadly, with his age being what it is, I do wonder how strong his voice will be for when Mufasa has to be threatening, angry or shouting. Donald Glover as Simba I have no problems with. Now they just need to cast Scar, and I really, really hope that Charles Dance gets the part; after playing Tywin Lannister with great panache, a role like Scar would fit him like a glove!

I hope that Jeremy Irons gets to replay his role as Scar. He made that villain come to life and made him evil in a way that I've never saw in a Disney villain before in my childhood. Even today, his voice as Scar is scary.

Sad thing is, twenty years ago Linsday Lohan had a head full of natural red hair; not too far off the mark when it came to playing Ariel in live action. But she will never appear in this current trend of live action Disney remakes. Had she had made less questionable choices with regards to the sorts of films she starred in or the people she associated with, her career would not have gone to sh*t.

Sad thing is, twenty years ago Linsday Lohan had a head full of natural red hair; not too far off the mark when it came to playing Ariel in live action. But she will never appear in this current trend of live action Disney remakes. Had she had made less questionable choices with regards to the sorts of films she starred in or the people she associated with, her career would not have gone to sh*t.

I also don't feel like she's got the body for it anymore. And I'm not body shaming, I'm a pretty large guy so I have no room to talk, but seeing her in pictures at ups and downs, I think her previous problems have left some negative effects they wouldn't take the time to cover in CGI or make-up, and just go for a casting with a more natural body.

Yeah, no thanks Jolie. One bone-headed movie that turns Maleficent into a soppy rabbit of an antihero was enough. Unless it's to be a straight up remake of Sleeping Beauty and you're going to do it properly this time, then flush this sh*t.

Yeah, no thanks Jolie. One bone-headed movie that turns Maleficent into a soppy rabbit of an antihero was enough. Unless it's to be a straight up remake of Sleeping Beauty and you're going to do it properly this time, then flush this sh*t.

It really was a bit much seeing Maleficent as a dark hero/misguided anti-hero. The thing is, I thought she actually acted quite well, but in the wrong way. I'm not against giving villains an interesting background as long as it's done well, but I have to say that it was not done well.